About your Search

20120925
20121003
STATION
CNNW 28
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
comments by susan rice saying the attacks were not preplanned. not the work of terror, were four days after that. this does not add up. intelligence committee chairman mike rogers is our exclusive guest, but first, elyse has the latest. you have been breaking this, this latest story about the white house choosing to leave information out. what are your sources saying as to why the white house left out key points. like the fact that this was a terrorist attack. >> the kronology, the day after the attack, my sources were telling me this was a preplanned military style assault indication there were terrorists involved. then as the days gone by, even though my sources continued to tell me this was preplan ned, te white house started using these talking points. no sources were saying there was any evidence of a mob and these talking points were delivered by susan rice on sunday even though there were officials that continued to say it was a -- and use those points when official say listen, this was the best information that susan rice was given. administration talking points at the time, but you
to the united nations susan rice, to resign because of the comments she made on those five sunday talk shows? >> yes, wolf. i believe that this was such a failure of foreign policy message and leadership, such a misstatement of facts at the time and for her to go on all of those shows and in effect the spokesman for the world and be misinforming the american people and our allies and countries around the world, to me somebody has to pay the price for this. we have too much things go wrong and everyone forgets about it the next day. i think we have to send a clear message. on such an issue where an american ambassador was killed where by all the evidence at the time the presumption had to be it was terrorism. i can see why if they wanted to say - it was intentionally or unintly and to show the significance of that, i believe she should gn, yes. >> because there is statemt that the pokesperson, the director of public affairs for the offif director of national intelligence put out today they et w obviously arist -- a action, delibete and organized terrorist assault carried out by extres affili
.s. government response has frankly been confusing. u.n. ambassador susan rice has said the attacks were not preplanned. secretary clinton said she had absolutely no information or reason to believe there is any basis to suggest that the u.s. ambassador was on an al qaeda hit list as a target. the state department said u.s. officials at that post never passed along the warning from the libyan government on militias and security in benghazi. now the administration appears to be backtracking a little bit, at least on the assertion about whether the attack was preplanned or not. but the take-away right now from the administration, when you take a step back and look at this information and the conflicts in the information, appears to be this. the americans on the ground failed to tell washington about the risks, so it isn't the state department's fault that they didn't stop it. well, why so much confusion? chris coons is on the senate foreign relations committee, he has been briefed on the situation. and first, sir, thank you very much for taking the time. let me start and ask you, since i k
about what the u.s. knew. eli, you have been investigating whether susan rice, the u.n. ambassador, was, in addition to receiving the talking points, obviously now everyone knows what those included, right, including that it was not a preplanned attack, also had perhaps been briefed on classified information, which could have included different pieces of information, obviously. what have you found? >> well, the main thing to understand is that the key piece of intelligence that informed the unclassified assessment that this was a spontaneous reaction to a video protest was an intercept between a member of ansar al sharia, and alk al qae in north africa. so that fact that it comes from that conversation, there are lots of reasons as to why the intelligence community would not want that information to be out there. one would compromise sources. the other is this there is a risk if you name groups like that, you could be creating a situation where you're getting false confirmation. someone may have seen a report to that effect, and you think it's an independent verification when it's just
to the united nations susan rice had said earlier it was a spontaneous attack over an anti-muslim film and that there were no extremists involved, but now with the new information, new york congressman peter king is calling for rice to step down. here's what he told our wolf blitzer. >> too much things to go wrong and everyone forgets about it the next day. i think we have to send a clear message and on such a flight issue as this, an american ambassador was killed and by all the accumulation of evidence at the time the prezumption had to be it was terrorism. i can see why they wanted to say it's too early to say it's definitively terrorism but to rule out terrorism and say it was not terrorism at that time, to me, was a terrible mistake to make whether it was intentionally or unintentionally. i believe she should resign, yes. >> the white house is standing by rice at her statements were based on information they had at the time. and it was not intended to mislead people. according to white house officials. >>> now to the crisis in syria. the u.s. is warning iran to stop providing arms
of the house homeland security committee. it all started when susan rice made remarks five days after those attacks. listen here. >> there was a hateful video that was disseminated on the internet. it had nothing to do with the united states government and it's one that we find disgusting and reprehencible. offensive to many, many people around the world. that sparked violence in various parts of the world including against western facilities including our embassies and consulates. >> the obama administration eventually labeled the attack on that consulate in libya terrorism. the chairman of the house homeland security committee peter king thinks there should be consequences to rice's original comments that you heard right there. here's what he said to wolf in "the situation room" friday. >> to rule out terrorism, to say it was not terrorism at that time was, to me, a terrible mistake to make whether it was done intentionally or unintentionally and i believe she should retisign, yes. >> let's bring back obama campaign supporter general wesley clark and rich williamson, former diplomatic, a
, susan rice and her explanation when she took to the airwaves following sunday after the attack saying, well, it could be spontaneous, could be spontaneous and involved into something, a platform for those who were actually planning something. and almost sounds like they're saying the same things, right? >> right, it does, it does. this really -- that's the political nature and how the stories can become so frustrating and how you take details and try to use them from one side to the other. that's the growing frustration you see in the intelligence community and why you've seen a comprehensive statement like this one put out. we'll put this on our website too at cnn.com/security clearance. you should take two seconds to read the whole thing. it is fascinating. susan rice was over the weekend talking about how the administration still believed even on sunday, a week and a half after the attack, this was something that grew out of a spontaneous protest. there were indications in the intelligence community that wasn't the case. and so that's been a point of debate. nailing down that timel
u.s. ambassador to the united nations susan rice to step down. new york congressman peter king says rice is to be held account aable for her statements on the attack. here's what he told our wolf
the benghazi attacks. some statements were made by the am bass do to the united nations, susan rice. now, peter king is calling for her to step down. here's what he told our wolf blitzer. >> i believe this was such a failure of foreign policy message and leadership, such a misstatement of facts, as were known at the time and for her to go on all of those shows and in effect be our spokesman for the world and misinform our allies and spokesmen around the world. someone has to pay the price for this. things go wrong and everyone forgets about it the next day. we have to send a clear message on such a vital issue like this where the american ambassador was killed, the presumptioned a to be it's terrorism. can see why they would have said it's too early to definitively rule out it was terrorism. to me, it was a terrible mistake to make whether intentionally or unintentionally, to show the significance, she should resign. >> the white house is standing by rice. they said everything she said in that interview was cleared by int interagency groups based on information they had and certainly nothing wa
is that theattacks were an atck on am t prnned, spontaneous, thatas susan rice and cried out by a small and sage group. that was secretary of state hillary clinton. well, there ofibya day alsoe out today and was clear out al-qaeda. >> hiding in libya. >> it was actually in a high level united nations meeting that hillary clinton for the first time today admitted that an al-qaeda linked group was involved. grps have launched a other kidnappings from northern mali working with other violent extremts to ne the tran we ticly saw in benghazi. >> now, "the newk time repoedhaotor.s. officis were surprised by secretary clinton's admission. her lking of alaeda linked groups t crisis in peaps, becauseat se id lat leadso a different conclusion. on thursday, secretary clinton said i quote, absolutely no information or reason to believe there is any basis to suggest that the u.s. ambassador was on an al-qaeda hit list. also perhaps because the president himself has not said terrorists were involved in the attacks. here he is on "the view" this week when asked if he thought it was a terrorist attack. >> the
, spontaneous, that was susan rice and carried out by a small and savage group. that was secretary of state hillary clinton. well, the president of libya today also came out today and was clear about al-qaeda. >> hiding in libya. >> it was actually in a high level united nations meeting that hillary clinton for the first timeoday admitted that an al-qaeda linked group was involved. >> for some time, al-qaeda in the islamic mog rab and other groups have launched attacks and kidnappings from northern mali into neighboring countries and are working with other violent extremists to undermine the transitions as we tragically saw in benghazi. >> now, "the new york times" reported that other senior u.s. officials were surprised by secretary clinton's admission. her linking of those al-qaeda linked groups to the crisis in benghazi. perhaps, because what she said late last week leads to a very different conclusion. on thursday, secretary clinton said i quote, absolutely no information or reason to believe there is any basis to suggest that the u.s. ambassador was on an al-qaeda hit list. also perhap
going to be cautious, why then proffer as ambassador susan rice did an alternative that it was related to this protest. that doesn't make -- if you don't want to speculate, then don't speculate either way. and so i just think now they're being criticized because they guessed wrong. >> it raises lots of conspiracy theories as well that people have, right or wrong. fran, appreciate it. bob baer. >>> senator john mccain is a long-time supporter of freedom for libya. he supported president obama's actions to remove gadhafi. he's been critical of how the administration has handled the benghazi aftermath. we spoke earlier today. take a look. wh do you make of the response by the administration in the early days of ambassador rice and now what they're saying now, they're now saying it was a terrorist attack. the president did use the word terror early on in the rose garden, but we heard from ambassador rice, who is saying link this to the video. what do you see as going on? >> i see a fundamental misunderstanding in the larger picture and then on the smaller picture. in the smaller picture th
, representative peter king is calling for the resignation of u.s. ambassador to the u.n. susan rice for what he says was misleading comments about the attacks in libya. yes, this issue has become political, but it is more than that because even if u.s. intelligence didn't know the specific details of an impending attack, here's what they and we do know. three days before the attack, senior u.s. embassy officials were warned by the libyan militia connected to the government, they couldn't secure benghazi. the british ambassador was attacked in june and of course, the attack happened on september 11th and once again, once the attack happened, u.s. intelligence knew within 24 hours that it was linked to al-qaeda. also, "the daily beast" eli lake reports they even knew the location of at least one of the attackers. eli is with me tonight on what u.s. intelligence knew in the immediate aftermath. also with us is jeff porter, an adviser on political and security risks and jeffrey cousins. great to see you. and eli, let me start with you. you have had so much of the first reporting on this and now, yo
that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated. >> the u.n. ambassador susan rice. two sundays ago, took another three days before the administration began acknowledging what many experts say should have been obvious. >> let me begin by asking you whether you would say that ambassador stevens and the three other americans died as a result of a terrorist attack. >> certainly on that particular question, i would say yes. they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. >> two days later, secretary of state clinton made it even plainer. >> what happened in benghazi was a terrorist attack and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four americans. >> keeping them honest, if the white house wants credit for quickly labeling what happened in benghazi an act of terror, can't also claim credit for prudently not calling it terrorism for so many days. whatever you think, clearly these are two candidates with some big questions to face and perhaps, they will less than 48 hours from now. that debate, a
in susan rice's head that it was september 11th that this happened? why did they put it out? because he didn't want his narrative in the middle east contradicted. things are moving in the right rection. things aren't moving in the right direction. they're moving back in the other direction and he made a lot of the wrong bets. get rid of mubarak, gadhafi. >> you think getting rid of mubarak was a -- >> i probably agree with hillary clinton. that mu babarak moved out more carefully with more emphasis on what comes about mubarak as opposed to, we move out, an ally of the united states, and replace it with a guy who would like to have the blind sheikh return to egypt, the man who wanted to bomb my city, was responsible for the attack in 1993 on the world trade center. you don't think things like that destabilize the middle east and make people wonder in the middle east about president obama's judgment? >> governor romney said he would support democratic values. on another hand saying he would basically fund candidates to win that are friendly to the united states. how is that espousing demo
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)